Woman Cardinals.

[Nihil Obstat]

Ok, what I meant to say earlier before my Chinese test was this:

 

I think the very natural progression has been for the cardinalate to become more and more closely associated with the episcopate and the teaching authority of the Church. This is pretty closely associated with cardinals typically heading the various Congregations and whatnot, and it is also tied IMO, in a slightly less intimate way, with the election of the Pontiff. I think we as a Church are more clearly seeing a sense in which the teaching authority of the Magisterium is the visible sign of unity that brings the Universal Church under the election of the Pope, and I think it is therefore most appropriate that only the ordained and preferably the episcopate are involved with the election, even if it is not a dogmatic necessity. The cardinalate, as a subset of the episcopate, is appropriate for that role. Edit to add: Obviously there are other ways to elect the pope, but our current system seems most appropriate given the state of the Church and the world.

It is also most appropriate, IMO, for those who hold the highest authority in the Congregations of the Vatican to be the same, to call to mind a link between teaching authority and the governance of the Church. Again, not theologically necessary, but spiritually beneficial.

 

Seeing as female cardinals are not a spiritual necessity, nor technically theologically impossible, we may be permitted to discuss it on its merits, but the normal functioning of the Church does seem to place a very heavy burden on those who want to change traditional disciplines. Therefore great benefits would have to be associated with such a change, and they would have to decisively outweigh benefits such as those I have mentioned.

 

Interesting sidenote: I was finally typing up this response when my laptop overheated and shut off. I assumed all my work was lost, and I was in the process of using my phone to write "滚开，笨电脑！！", and I would have flipped a table and ragequit because I was too frustrated to retype all of it. But when I brought the browser back up it also gave me the option to restore autosaved data. So Dust's forum has once again saved the day, and allowed for my contribution to this thread to be possible.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[KnightofChrist]

Sexism can be a form of bigotry, so to make the charge of sexism is very serious and grave. Being accused of it can destroy the character and life of the one accused. There should be some actual evidence of this before making such charges, and those that make the charge should not throw it around so easily.

I have now seen repeated attempts to paint anyone that would not approve of female cardinals of sexism, solely on the basis that one would be against it. Yet no real evidence is given, just the very simple and short sighted charge that if you are against you are a sexist.

I don't deny sexism can exist in the hearts of the faithful. I just want real evidence of sexism in the actual case we are discussing.

Edited November 8, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Nihil Obstat]

KnightofChrist is right in that accusations of sexist are serious and should not be thrown around lightly. I am fine with debating the merits of female cardinals, but to accuse someone of sexist solely because they are against it seems rather dangerously close to rash judgement and calumny, with reference to CCC #2477.

Not that anyone here is likely guilty of that or anything, but you know...  We should be prudent.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

Interesting sidenote: I was finally typing up this response when my laptop overheated and shut off. I assumed all my work was lost, and I was in the process of using my phone to write "滚开，笨电脑！！", and I would have flipped a table and ragequit because I was too frustrated to retype all of it. 

Although, this is not really truthful. I love my new laptop. Phenomenal price for its specs. We just could not keep it in stock at Staples. I only curse at it occasionally - much less often than I was with my old MBP.

[Ice_nine]

I don't think sexist is a "grave accusation." I think lots of people have prejudices that they are not consciously aware of and behave in ways that reflect their bias.

 

 

Also, for all the man/boys, when talking about gender dynamics and whatnot please take a minute or two to reflect on what it's like to constantly be told that you must be under the subjugation of a man or multiple men in order to be holy. Imagine how that would make you feel. You know us women with our uteruses and estrogenic cycle, feelings are super important.

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

I don't think sexist is a "grave accusation." I think lots of people have prejudices that they are not consciously aware of and behave in ways that reflect their bias.

I think it could easily fall into calumny or rash judgement, so in that sense it is at least potentially serious. We need to be careful, especially on the internet, to respect each others' honour and reputation. (CCC # 2475-2487)

[CountrySteve21]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/04/women-cardinals-pope-francis_n_4211919.html?ir=Religion

 

According to this, there shall be no women Cardinals. God bless!

Edited November 8, 2013 by CountrySteve21

[NotreDame]

The Church, as an institution, doesn't unjustly discriminate against women.  The Church's dogma and doctrine doesn't unjustly discriminate against women.  People in the Church discriminate against women.  And the fact that it's "people" and not the institution of our mother Church is not one to be discounted.  People are the hands and feet of the Church, and are the parts that other people interact with.  People rarely leave the Church simply because of a rational problem with theology. People leave the Church because they are treated poorly by other people, particularly people with authority in the Church.  

 

While it may not hold any water for some of you, I believe anecdotal evidence of women being treated poorly in the Church should not be written off. It's not that big bad priests think "Oh, that person is a woman, I should ignore everything she says and tell her to shut up and go make some more babies for me to baptize."  It's much more subtle than that. We could talk all day every day about how amesome mothers are and how much we love Our Lady, but none of that will make the slightest difference if it doesn't translate to our day to day interactions with each other. Some people might decry any of this as being "PC" - as if that somehow means that people are sacrificing truth for the sake of feeling warm and fuzzy. In reality, efforts to be "more PC" are actually attempts to get people to empathize with each other.

 

Basilisa,

 

please don't make the mistake of thinking that because someone might not be immediately excited about the idea of female cardinals, it doesn't mean that they wouldn't be receptive to the concerns you bring up in the two paragraphs above.  I have personal experience in being hurt in this area myself, so I know it's painful. 

 

When myself and some of the other posters are either arguing against your arguments, or arguing directly against female Cardinals, we actually aren't arguing against the above concerns, although we may be arguing that we don't feel they are relevant to the whole cardinal issue. 

 

It's an important distinction and it might help you to see we really aren't disagreeing with you on the things that you obviously feel pretty passionate about. 

 

- ND

[CrossCuT]

I think that is a false dichotomy, but I love your pictures on FB! :)

 

You sly ninja!

Tossing me compliments to distract me  :ninja: 

 

:love:

[Semper Catholic]

PRO's: You get helpful insight from ya'know roughly 50% of the people that make up the Church

 

CON's: Those dang kids won't get off your lawn, and now they stole your dentures.

 

Yeah there really isn't any reason not to have a female Cardinal, except for the fact the Church risks losing power to a minority that may not fall in with the company line.

[CrossCuT]

PRO's: You get helpful insight from ya'know roughly 50% of the people that make up the Church

 

CON's: Those dang kids won't get off your lawn, and now they stole your dentures.

 

Yeah there really isn't any reason not to have a female Cardinal, except for the fact the Church risks losing power to a minority that may not fall in with the company line.

 

I think the biggest con is the women cardinals will force all the men cardinals to get manicures...

[4588686]

Right.  So the same crowd who are always cheering the Church into confrontations with modernity and shaking up the complacency of the laity are suddenly hyper concerned about ruffling feathers when it comes to empowering women in the Church.

 

I have a question to faithful female Catholics.  Exactly how many times does the male vanguard of Orthodoxy have to hand you a poo sandwich to eat before you notice that you're eating poo?

[Era Might]

Poppycock, reading gender conflict into human history is nothing but revisionist feminist history.  Women and men have separate roles in society and separate duties.  That a woman's place is known, respected and maintained is not an abuse of authority and power.  Men have long taken care of the necessities of women.  The right to vote in society is not an inalienable human right.  It is an entirely modern conception and even the Greeks did not grant this right universally.  No man has a right to higher education, no man has a right to any education beyond hat which is necessary for salvation and for their livelihood, so women having been excluded from the universities doesn't swing it and they received adequate religious instruction.  Pray tell how women's necessities have been disregarded by men throughout human history?

 

You are speaking very dogmatically about history. Gender conflict has always been present in society (how could it not be)? Just read The Wife of Bath in Chaucer's "The Canterbury Tales." Or you could go back farther to Aristophanes' play "Lysistrata" about women who withhold sex from their husbands to force them to end the Peloponnesian War.

 

The Greek experiment with democracy also evolved. Originally it was limited to the polis, the city, and gradually the idea of a "cosmopolis" evolved along with expansion beyond city-states to a Hellenist empire.

 

It is true that the basis of gender is a division of roles, but there is no universal or immutable division of roles. The idea that nobody has a right to an education beyond "what is necessary for salvation" is a pretty barbaric way of looking at things. Who decides which people can know what? It's not just women who were excluded from knowledge and individuality...men were too (through slavery, through feudalism, etc.). Once you tell a man he is capable of knowing and doing more...the genie is out of the bottle. This talk of "roles" creates a ghetto fanaticism that has nothing to do with reality or Christianity, and is bound to explode in revolution (as it did in the 20th century).

Edited November 9, 2013 by Era Might

[An Historian]

Also, for all the man/boys, when talking about gender dynamics and whatnot please take a minute or two to reflect on what it's like to constantly be told that you must be under the subjugation of a man or multiple men in order to be holy. Imagine how that would make you feel. You know us women with our uteruses and estrogenic cycle, feelings are super important.

 

As a Catholic I have a moral obligation to obey my parents in all lawful commands until such a time as I am married and leave home.  Imagine how it feels to have such a moral obligation!  As a Catholic I am also bound by moral obligations to my employers, to my lawful government and superiors.  Oh don't forget my confessor as well.

 

Everyone in society has obligations to others, everyone in society has a lawful superior with the single exception of the Roman Pontiff.  Yes women are subject to their husbands and their fathers.  But their husbands and their fathers are also subject themselves to other lawful authorities.  So for all women/girls... get over it.  Welcome to the world.

[NotreDame]

You know, of the two most accomplished and respected Catholic women from the last 25 or even 50 years, at the top of the list would be Mother Teresa and Mother Angelica.  I'd love to have either voting at the papal conclave in place of some Cardinals I won't name.

 

Unfortunately, if you suggested the idea to them, they'd most likely laugh in your face.  In fact, I doubt it would end with laughing... You'd probably end up with quite the lecture:

 

This is it. I've had all I'm going to take ... You know, as catholics we've been quiet all these years.... I'm tired, tired of being pushed in the corners. I'm tired of your inclusive language that refuses to admit that the Son of God is a man. I'm tired of your tricks. I'm tired of you making a crack, and the first thing you know there's a hole, and all of us fall in. No, this was deliberate ... you made a statement that was not accidental. I am so tired of you, liberal Church in America. You're sick.... You have nothing to offer. You do nothing but destroy. You don't have vocations, and you don't even care -- your whole purpose is to destroy... You can't stand Catholicism at its height, so you try to spoil it, as you've spoiled so many things in these thirty years....